Author Topic: coronavirus  (Read 65620 times)

Fenring

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: coronavirus
« Reply #1900 on: June 08, 2020, 02:37:38 PM »
If it's so rare, how come so many people catch it from casual interactions with other people who don't think they're sick?

It's possible there is an unstated difference between asymptomatic, meaning, carriers who will never get sick, and asymptomatic, meaning people who recently came into contact with it and have yet to develop symptoms because it's too early. It seems like Crunch is talking about people who are carriers but will never show symptoms. I think it should be pretty clear that many people are 'asymptomatic' in the sense that they just came into contact the day before with a sick person and they themselves haven't gotten sick yet. These latter people will probably carry a much larger level of contagious risk.

That, and I don't put much faith in peoples' honesty with themselves or awareness. There are probably plenty of people sick with COVID who are convinced it's just a cold or they're stressed or overworked. Once it takes on a moral dimension (like AIDS, but to a lesser extent) people will have a vested interested in denying that they have it, even to themselves. Because if they do have it that must mean they were negligent and part of the problem.

rightleft22

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: coronavirus
« Reply #1901 on: June 08, 2020, 02:40:15 PM »
I objected to the use of t-shirts as effective masks. We all know that is bull*censored*.

Now we know that the asymptomatic spread was also bull*censored*. All the models were bull*censored*. Literally every single reason we were told justified putting 40 million out of work was bull*censored*. Literally every single reason protesting the lockdown was so damn dangerous has now been exposed as bull*censored*.

This whole thing was one big exercise in scaring people witless with unmitigated bull*censored*.

I have to admit that sometimes my thinking goes that way however then I think of what happened in places like Italy - 1000 people dying a day indicates that concern was reasonable with what we knew at the time.

I suspect their is still much we will learn about covid-19 and lessons learned won't be fully know for years

The issue I have with your statement is that it seems to assume conspiracy when more likely (occam's razor) people were doing what they felt was best to deal with the situation and information they had  in the moment. But I never saw this as a political issue. (Framing everything as a either/or political issue I understand why some will see conspiracy.)   

Do I think the intent of the full lock-down was forgotten and so went on to long.

Kasandra

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: coronavirus
« Reply #1902 on: June 08, 2020, 02:42:00 PM »
Quote
It's possible there is an unstated difference between asymptomatic, meaning, carriers who will never get sick, and asymptomatic, meaning people who recently came into contact with it and have yet to develop symptoms because it's too early. It seems like Crunch is talking about people who are carriers but will never show symptoms.

Thanks for clarifying, but IMO he meant asymptomatic as in asymptomatic, not asymptomatic as opposed to asymptomatic.  But only he really knows, if in fact he does.

DonaldD

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: coronavirus
« Reply #1903 on: June 08, 2020, 02:46:58 PM »
Now we know that the asymptomatic spread was also bull*censored*. All the models were bull*censored*. Literally every single reason we were told justified putting 40 million out of work was bull*censored*.
Actually, we do not know this.  Literally.

Crunch

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: coronavirus
« Reply #1904 on: June 08, 2020, 02:49:20 PM »
I'll give you a hand here, Crunch:

Quote
Shutdown orders prevented about 60 million novel coronavirus infections in the United States and 285 million in China, according to a research study published Monday that examined how stay-at-home orders and other restrictions limited the spread of the contagion.

A separate study from epidemiologists at Imperial College London estimated the shutdowns saved about 3.1 million lives in 11 European countries, including 500,000 in the United Kingdom, and dropped infection rates by an average of 82 percent, sufficient to drive the contagion well below epidemic levels.

The two reports, published simultaneously Monday in the journal Nature, used completely different methods to reach similar conclusions. They suggest that the aggressive and unprecedented shutdowns, which caused massive economic disruptions and job losses, were effective at halting the exponential spread of the novel coronavirus.

And this just exposes the level of bull*censored* here. The very first page on that "study" shows the paper was submitted March 22nd. The epidemic in the US had barely even begun. It was a study to justify lockdowns, not in any way proving their value. They find almost no correlation between individual lockdown policies and ANY meaningful change in growth. It's junk.

Crunch

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: coronavirus
« Reply #1905 on: June 08, 2020, 02:54:54 PM »
I objected to the use of t-shirts as effective masks. We all know that is bull*censored*.

Now we know that the asymptomatic spread was also bull*censored*. All the models were bull*censored*. Literally every single reason we were told justified putting 40 million out of work was bull*censored*. Literally every single reason protesting the lockdown was so damn dangerous has now been exposed as bull*censored*.

This whole thing was one big exercise in scaring people witless with unmitigated bull*censored*.

I have to admit that sometimes my thinking goes that way however then I think of what happened in places like Italy - 1000 people dying a day indicates that concern was reasonable with what we knew at the time.

I suspect their is still much we will learn about covid-19 and lessons learned won't be fully know for years

The issue I have with your statement is that it seems to assume conspiracy when more likely (occam's razor) people were doing what they felt was best to deal with the situation and information they had  in the moment. But I never saw this as a political issue. (Framing everything as a either/or political issue I understand why some will see conspiracy.)   

Do I think the intent of the full lock-down was forgotten and so went on to long.

You infer that it assumes conspiracy theory. I don't say it was a conspiracy. I don't doubt there's a lot of people that were trying to do what they felt was best. But, you can see all the way through this thread, I was like many others calling it out as bull*censored*. People were frightened, badly. And that was intentional. They were so badly frightened they started believing things that were unlikely or impossible and a lot of people really got off on that (also something you can see in this thread).

To insist there was not a political issue tied to this is to ignore current events. Somehow, COVID was not dangerous for some social issues and was a certain fatality for others. That is straight-up politics and nothing else.

Fenring

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: coronavirus
« Reply #1906 on: June 08, 2020, 03:02:14 PM »
Quote
It's possible there is an unstated difference between asymptomatic, meaning, carriers who will never get sick, and asymptomatic, meaning people who recently came into contact with it and have yet to develop symptoms because it's too early. It seems like Crunch is talking about people who are carriers but will never show symptoms.

Thanks for clarifying, but IMO he meant asymptomatic as in asymptomatic, not asymptomatic as opposed to asymptomatic.  But only he really knows, if in fact he does.

Pretty sure you had no interest at all in what I wrote and just replied to be snarky. I tried to be helpful and your answer is to troll.

rightleft22

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: coronavirus
« Reply #1907 on: June 08, 2020, 04:01:36 PM »
Quote
You infer that it assumes conspiracy theory. I don't say it was a conspiracy. I don't doubt there's a lot of people that were trying to do what they felt was best. But, you can see all the way through this thread, I was like many others calling it out as bull*censored*. People were frightened, badly. And that was intentional. They were so badly frightened they started believing things that were unlikely or impossible and a lot of people really got off on that (also something you can see in this thread).

To insist there was not a political issue tied to this is to ignore current events. Somehow, COVID was not dangerous for some social issues and was a certain fatality for others. That is straight-up politics and nothing else.

I did use the words 'seems to assume conspiracy' which I attributed to the politicization of what is a health issue.
You did call bull *censored* on the models and many explained the purpose behind models as predictors and that constantly get updated even as they are used for planning. All weather models are based on probability and could be call out as bull*censored* yet they are helpful for planing a day.   
You did call bull*censored* on masks and not on Hydroxychloroquine the reasoning contradicting each other.
And yes people that are afraid will believe things that are unlikely and or impossible. The Politics of fear works, just look at your man. I don't expect you would ask yourself if that could possibly be a projection.

I agree that enforcing masks but encouraging no masks, Social distancing verses protesting, Slow opening verse 100 opening are or became political issues however that does no make the health issue political. At least it should not be.
 

ScottF

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: coronavirus
« Reply #1908 on: June 08, 2020, 04:06:40 PM »
Millions of people across the country have been standing shoulder to shoulder, loudly and repeatedly shouting. Some wore masks, some not.  We're told that mass crowds and shouting/singing is one of the most transmissible virus environments. This means that sometime in the next 10-ish days we should be seeing spikes of tens of thousands of new infections and corresponding deaths.

Does anyone disagree with this?

Kasandra

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: coronavirus
« Reply #1909 on: June 08, 2020, 04:38:32 PM »
Millions of people across the country have been standing shoulder to shoulder, loudly and repeatedly shouting. Some wore masks, some not.  We're told that mass crowds and shouting/singing is one of the most transmissible virus environments. This means that sometime in the next 10-ish days we should be seeing spikes of tens of thousands of new infections and corresponding deaths.

Does anyone disagree with this?

I think it's pretty likely, but I think it's somewhat weird that whether people are protesting with or without masks is somehow making attempts to mitigate and control the spread of coronavirus a political issue. 

Crunch

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: coronavirus
« Reply #1910 on: June 08, 2020, 04:39:38 PM »
Have you even noticed what happened last week?

Kasandra

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: coronavirus
« Reply #1911 on: June 08, 2020, 04:50:21 PM »
I'll give you a hand here, Crunch:

Quote
Shutdown orders prevented about 60 million novel coronavirus infections in the United States and 285 million in China, according to a research study published Monday that examined how stay-at-home orders and other restrictions limited the spread of the contagion.

A separate study from epidemiologists at Imperial College London estimated the shutdowns saved about 3.1 million lives in 11 European countries, including 500,000 in the United Kingdom, and dropped infection rates by an average of 82 percent, sufficient to drive the contagion well below epidemic levels.

The two reports, published simultaneously Monday in the journal Nature, used completely different methods to reach similar conclusions. They suggest that the aggressive and unprecedented shutdowns, which caused massive economic disruptions and job losses, were effective at halting the exponential spread of the novel coronavirus.

And this just exposes the level of bull*censored* here. The very first page on that "study" shows the paper was submitted March 22nd. The epidemic in the US had barely even begun. It was a study to justify lockdowns, not in any way proving their value. They find almost no correlation between individual lockdown policies and ANY meaningful change in growth. It's junk.

That's exactly right.  It refers to the very beginning of the pandemic.

Kasandra

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: coronavirus
« Reply #1912 on: June 08, 2020, 04:50:57 PM »
Have you even noticed what happened last week?

??  How about trying to respond?

Kasandra

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: coronavirus
« Reply #1913 on: June 08, 2020, 04:52:21 PM »
Quote
It's possible there is an unstated difference between asymptomatic, meaning, carriers who will never get sick, and asymptomatic, meaning people who recently came into contact with it and have yet to develop symptoms because it's too early. It seems like Crunch is talking about people who are carriers but will never show symptoms.

Thanks for clarifying, but IMO he meant asymptomatic as in asymptomatic, not asymptomatic as opposed to asymptomatic.  But only he really knows, if in fact he does.

Pretty sure you had no interest at all in what I wrote and just replied to be snarky. I tried to be helpful and your answer is to troll.

You made a silly distinction, and attributed it to someone else who didn't make it.

ScottF

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: coronavirus
« Reply #1914 on: June 08, 2020, 04:53:49 PM »
Millions of people across the country have been standing shoulder to shoulder, loudly and repeatedly shouting. Some wore masks, some not.  We're told that mass crowds and shouting/singing is one of the most transmissible virus environments. This means that sometime in the next 10-ish days we should be seeing spikes of tens of thousands of new infections and corresponding deaths.

Does anyone disagree with this?

I think it's pretty likely, but I think it's somewhat weird that whether people are protesting with or without masks is somehow making attempts to mitigate and control the spread of coronavirus a political issue.

I wasn't really going there, but it became political by definition the moment medical officials weighed in and said that protests (of certain, approved causes) superseded mitigation and virus risks.

rightleft22

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: coronavirus
« Reply #1915 on: June 08, 2020, 05:32:07 PM »
Quote
I wasn't really going there, but it became political by definition the moment medical officials weighed in and said that protests (of certain, approved causes) superseded mitigation and virus risks.

Is their a tipping point to that? If "4 Out of 5" Dentists Agree and the disagreeing voice is that of a idiot does the voice of the idiot the one have more weight? Why is it the voices of the idiots that we go? Is it all in the cause of certainty or our political righteousness?. What happened to discernment
I'm so tired of this crap

Kasandra

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: coronavirus
« Reply #1916 on: June 08, 2020, 05:35:09 PM »
Millions of people across the country have been standing shoulder to shoulder, loudly and repeatedly shouting. Some wore masks, some not.  We're told that mass crowds and shouting/singing is one of the most transmissible virus environments. This means that sometime in the next 10-ish days we should be seeing spikes of tens of thousands of new infections and corresponding deaths.

Does anyone disagree with this?

I think it's pretty likely, but I think it's somewhat weird that whether people are protesting with or without masks is somehow making attempts to mitigate and control the spread of coronavirus a political issue.

I wasn't really going there, but it became political by definition the moment medical officials weighed in and said that protests (of certain, approved causes) superseded mitigation and virus risks.

Medical officials who express political opinions are using their free speech outside of the domain of their expertise.  I doubt they felt that protests were medically protected speech.

ScottF

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: coronavirus
« Reply #1917 on: June 08, 2020, 06:31:45 PM »
Quote
I wasn't really going there, but it became political by definition the moment medical officials weighed in and said that protests (of certain, approved causes) superseded mitigation and virus risks.

Is their a tipping point to that? If "4 Out of 5" Dentists Agree and the disagreeing voice is that of a idiot does the voice of the idiot the one have more weight? Why is it the voices of the idiots that we go? Is it all in the cause of certainty or our political righteousness?. What happened to discernment
I'm so tired of this crap

I'm not really sure what you're saying here. I posted earlier about 1000 medical professionals who said they supported certain large gatherings despite COVID risks. Are you saying it's just a small number of crackpots (the 5th dentist) that has this opinion?

Crunch

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: coronavirus
« Reply #1918 on: June 08, 2020, 06:50:27 PM »
Have you even noticed what happened last week?

??  How about trying to respond?

To what? More smarmy comments will be ignored, as they should be.

Crunch

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: coronavirus
« Reply #1919 on: June 08, 2020, 06:51:26 PM »
I'll give you a hand here, Crunch:

Quote
Shutdown orders prevented about 60 million novel coronavirus infections in the United States and 285 million in China, according to a research study published Monday that examined how stay-at-home orders and other restrictions limited the spread of the contagion.

A separate study from epidemiologists at Imperial College London estimated the shutdowns saved about 3.1 million lives in 11 European countries, including 500,000 in the United Kingdom, and dropped infection rates by an average of 82 percent, sufficient to drive the contagion well below epidemic levels.

The two reports, published simultaneously Monday in the journal Nature, used completely different methods to reach similar conclusions. They suggest that the aggressive and unprecedented shutdowns, which caused massive economic disruptions and job losses, were effective at halting the exponential spread of the novel coronavirus.

And this just exposes the level of bull*censored* here. The very first page on that "study" shows the paper was submitted March 22nd. The epidemic in the US had barely even begun. It was a study to justify lockdowns, not in any way proving their value. They find almost no correlation between individual lockdown policies and ANY meaningful change in growth. It's junk.

That's exactly right.  It refers to the very beginning of the pandemic.

Yeah, that’s exactly right. Check your timeline. Walk through it.

ScottF

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: coronavirus
« Reply #1920 on: June 09, 2020, 12:47:27 AM »
If, as the WHO now says, people who don’t show symptoms are extremely unlikely to spread the virus under any conditions, should everyone still wear masks? It was never to protect the wearer -  so no fever, no cough, no anything - should you wear a mask?  Perhaps yes, as a continued symbol of respect?

cherrypoptart

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: coronavirus
« Reply #1921 on: June 09, 2020, 01:24:41 AM »
What does unlikely mean though? Ten percent chance seems like that would make it unlikely. With hundreds of millions of people engaging in billions of interactions every day you know what they say... no matter how unlikely it is for an event to occur, if the conditions that make it possible are repeated often enough it becomes nearly a certainty. Or something like that.

I saw something that said wearing masks could reduce the risk of transmission by up to 85%. Two facts lead me to believe it is true. The first is that I saw it on the internet and the second is that it supports what I already suspect.

One other thing to consider is that the WHO has been wrong so often so far that it's entirely possible a George Costanza "do the opposite of what I'd normally do" approach would achieve better results.

And one last other thing is that we already tried the maskless approach and it was a total disaster with over 100,000 souls lost so far. Trying again what already failed is a recipe for doom.

cherrypoptart

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: coronavirus
« Reply #1922 on: June 09, 2020, 01:32:25 AM »
So one thing that would be interesting to study is what would happen if your mask only covered your mouth but not your nose? How effective would that be? My bet is that it would still be much more effective than nothing and it might make more people more willing to go along with it. It's mostly the droplets with the virus riding on them getting spread by the open mouth while talking, laughing, coughing, sneezing, and so on. If the mouth remained covered at all times to catch those droplets while people could still breathe through their nose if tests showed that was reasonably effective then it could be a reasonable compromise. An interesting thing to look at might be the spread of the virus through communities of deaf people. I'm not sure if there is a place like that but if you just had people signing instead of talking would that reduce the spread? Of course they still laugh and you may have uncovered coughs and sneezes to worry about but it would be something to look at. If it turned out to be true then another possibility is that people who don't want to wear masks just hold off on their First Amendment right to free speech for the little while that they are indoors in crowded areas and keep their mouths shut.

Kasandra

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: coronavirus
« Reply #1923 on: June 09, 2020, 06:38:13 AM »
If, as the WHO now says, people who don’t show symptoms are extremely unlikely to spread the virus under any conditions, should everyone still wear masks? It was never to protect the wearer -  so no fever, no cough, no anything - should you wear a mask?  Perhaps yes, as a continued symbol of respect?

If asymptomatic spread is rare, how have millions of people become infected?  It's not like everyone caught it from someone who was sneezing and coughing in their faces.

Also, note that a couple of days ago the WHO changed their recommendation about wearing masks to say that they are now recommended.

Kasandra

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: coronavirus
« Reply #1924 on: June 09, 2020, 08:08:11 AM »
More analysis of the jobs report issued by the BLS last week.  According to the Brookings Institute, the real rate remained closer to 19%.

Quote
BLS asserts that 20,935,000 Americans were unemployed in May, attributing the decline to employers adding 2,509,000 jobs in May as states allowed “a limited resumption of economic activity.” But it’s not that simple. The unexpected decline in the jobless rate is based on a survey of businesses and households conducted over the week of May 16th, and BLS has also reported that 29,965,415 Americans received unemployment insurance benefits in the same week. That’s a gap of 8,980,415 people, enough to raise the May jobless rate 5.7 percentage points to 19.0 percent and much closer to economists’ expectations.

How did the Labor Department come up with such a low figure? Part of it is the Payroll Protection Program: The BLS counted anyone who employers say were still being paid as employed “even if they were not actually at their jobs.” Part of it involves how the BLS treats the many millions of people now on furlough and not being paid. They are considered “unemployed on temporary layoff.” But if BLS expects them to return to their old jobs, based on the survey, they do not count among the unemployed.

Those judgments are left to the BLS’s discretion, and the agency does not issue any data on those decisions. Yet a recent analysis from the Becker Friedman Institute at the University of Chicago estimated that 42 percent of people furloughed by the COVID-19 crisis will never get their old jobs back, and only 30 percent of those laid off will land new jobs later this year. With 30 million people receiving unemployment benefits, that analysis is more consistent with unemployment at 19.0 percent today than 13.3 percent. BLS itself acknowledges in its May report that counting those on furlough as unemployed would raise its official rate to 16.3 percent.

Kasandra

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: coronavirus
« Reply #1925 on: June 09, 2020, 12:56:15 PM »
If, as the WHO now says, people who don’t show symptoms are extremely unlikely to spread the virus under any conditions, should everyone still wear masks? It was never to protect the wearer -  so no fever, no cough, no anything - should you wear a mask?  Perhaps yes, as a continued symbol of respect?

If asymptomatic spread is rare, how have millions of people become infected?  It's not like everyone caught it from someone who was sneezing and coughing in their faces.

Also, note that a couple of days ago the WHO changed their recommendation about wearing masks to say that they are now recommended.

And now the WHO is changing their statement about low asymptomatic transmission rates:

Quote
The World Health Organization moved Tuesday to clarify its position on whether people without symptoms are widely spreading the new coronavirus, saying much remains unknown about asymptomatic transmission.

A comment by a WHO official on Monday — calling such asymptomatic transmissions “very rare” — touched off a furious scientific debate over the unresolved question and attracted widespread criticism of the organization.

Less than 24 hours later, WHO convened a special news conference to walk back its comments, stressing that much remains unknown. But the comment from Monday had already spread widely and been seized upon by conservatives and others to bolster arguments that people do not need to wear masks or maintain social distancing precautions.

The episode sparked criticism of WHO’s public health messaging and highlighted just how fraught and easily politicized such work remains months into the pandemic.

TheDrake

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: coronavirus
« Reply #1926 on: June 09, 2020, 01:04:33 PM »
As for asymptomatic spread, five staff members and one resident at my Mother's nursing home are now asymptomatic and positive. Despite precautions. Anecdotes don't prove a point, and there exists the possibility that there was a symptomatic person that infected them all, but I think it highlights how much we don't know. I was hoping that two cases would mean false positives, but six are unlikely as I understand it. WHO has already walked back the statement - which by the way was a statement in passing, not an official declaration. You know, not a policy recommendation to stop wearing masks and eliminating social distancing.

Kasandra

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: coronavirus
« Reply #1927 on: June 10, 2020, 06:37:31 AM »
Quote
It's possible there is an unstated difference between asymptomatic, meaning, carriers who will never get sick, and asymptomatic, meaning people who recently came into contact with it and have yet to develop symptoms because it's too early. It seems like Crunch is talking about people who are carriers but will never show symptoms.

Thanks for clarifying, but IMO he meant asymptomatic as in asymptomatic, not asymptomatic as opposed to asymptomatic.  But only he really knows, if in fact he does.

Pretty sure you had no interest at all in what I wrote and just replied to be snarky. I tried to be helpful and your answer is to troll.

You made a silly distinction, and attributed it to someone else who didn't make it.

In fairness to Fenring (see, I am capable), there is a difference but without a distinction (or is it the other way 'round?) between people who will never develop symptoms despite being infected and those who haven't yet, but will.  Unfortunately (see, I have to be clear), there is no way to tell which group a person who tests positive and is asymptomatic will fall into.  Despite their muddled message about asymptomatic carriers only rarely infecting others, the WHO admits that they don't even know what percentage of those already thusly infected have fallen into each category.  In other words, wear a mask.

Crunch

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: coronavirus
« Reply #1928 on: June 10, 2020, 08:27:06 AM »
As for asymptomatic spread, five staff members and one resident at my Mother's nursing home are now asymptomatic and positive. Despite precautions. Anecdotes don't prove a point, and there exists the possibility that there was a symptomatic person that infected them all, but I think it highlights how much we don't know. I was hoping that two cases would mean false positives, but six are unlikely as I understand it. WHO has already walked back the statement - which by the way was a statement in passing, not an official declaration. You know, not a policy recommendation to stop wearing masks and eliminating social distancing.

On another thread we have all been assured that such statements in passing are the way we set official policy. If this is gonna be situational, maybe we need a flowchart or something.

So, WHO is trying to walk it back. Now, which is the true statement supported by science? The one made by scientists when they’re openly talking about a disease or the one made after political pressure is put on them for voicing an unpopular conclusion?

Fenring

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: coronavirus
« Reply #1929 on: June 10, 2020, 12:51:37 PM »
In fairness to Fenring (see, I am capable), there is a difference but without a distinction (or is it the other way 'round?) between people who will never develop symptoms despite being infected and those who haven't yet, but will.

There's no distinction to you because you have no interest in the issue, other than as an item you can swat down as you tell yourself that people on the 'other side' need to learn their place. LR wrote practically the same thing I did, in the other thread, about types of non-presenting people, but I didn't see you making a snarky comment about that. Hmmm, I wonder why...

Quote
Unfortunately (see, I have to be clear), there is no way to tell which group a person who tests positive and is asymptomatic will fall into.  Despite their muddled message about asymptomatic carriers only rarely infecting others, the WHO admits that they don't even know what percentage of those already thusly infected have fallen into each category.  In other words, wear a mask.

Just looking at someone, you wouldn't know. But it is medically knowable, whether or not we have the resources or ability to easily tell. But a blanket statement that "asymptomatic people X" needs closer scrutiny in terms of who these people supposedly are. I doubt the contagion factor is the same in a person infect yesterday who will get sick, versus someone who is a carrier and will never get sick. And if you think there's no distinction here then you're totally off the rails.

Example: If you quarantine for 14 days and show no symptoms, it *might* mean you're an asymptomatic carrier. However if we knew for certain that they pose only a teeny risk then that person could feel ok going out to work, even partaking of the lightened restrictions. That's very different from someone who's been congregating normally, and says "well I feel fine so what's the problem."

Kasandra

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: coronavirus
« Reply #1930 on: June 10, 2020, 01:06:44 PM »
In fairness to Fenring (see, I am capable), there is a difference but without a distinction (or is it the other way 'round?) between people who will never develop symptoms despite being infected and those who haven't yet, but will.

There's no distinction to you because you have no interest in the issue, other than as an item you can swat down as you tell yourself that people on the 'other side' need to learn their place. LR wrote practically the same thing I did, in the other thread, about types of non-presenting people, but I didn't see you making a snarky comment about that. Hmmm, I wonder why...

I saw his post.  I didn't see him make a claim as to what Crunch was thinking, though.

Quote
Quote
Unfortunately (see, I have to be clear), there is no way to tell which group a person who tests positive and is asymptomatic will fall into.  Despite their muddled message about asymptomatic carriers only rarely infecting others, the WHO admits that they don't even know what percentage of those already thusly infected have fallen into each category.  In other words, wear a mask.

Just looking at someone, you wouldn't know. But it is medically knowable, whether or not we have the resources or ability to easily tell. But a blanket statement that "asymptomatic people X" needs closer scrutiny in terms of who these people supposedly are. I doubt the contagion factor is the same in a person infect yesterday who will get sick, versus someone who is a carrier and will never get sick. And if you think there's no distinction here then you're totally off the rails.

No, I've read in several places that there is no way to tell except after the fact when it is discovered that someone had tested positive and never developed symptoms.

Quote
Quote
How can I tell if someone is pre-symptomatic or asymptomatic?
You can't. Both types of carriers look and feel normal, though the pre-symptomatic carriers will get symptoms later.

Studies suggest pre-symptomatic spread is more common than asymptomatic spread.

"Detailed contact tracing from Taiwan as well as the first European transmission chain in Germany suggested that true asymptomatics rarely transmit," said Babak Javid, a principal investigator at Tsinghua University School of Medicine in Beijing and an infectious disease consultant at Cambridge University Hospitals.
"However, those (and many other) studies have found that paucisymptomatic transmission (meaning they have extremely mild symptoms) can occur, and in particular, in the German study, they found that transmission often appeared to occur before or on the day symptoms first appeared."

Quote
Example: If you quarantine for 14 days and show no symptoms, it *might* mean you're an asymptomatic carrier. However if we knew for certain that they pose only a teeny risk then that person could feel ok going out to work, even partaking of the lightened restrictions. That's very different from someone who's been congregating normally, and says "well I feel fine so what's the problem."

Yes, you're right that it's very, very hard to tell the difference ;).

Crunch

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: coronavirus
« Reply #1931 on: June 10, 2020, 03:23:45 PM »
Quote
Starbucks is permanently closing 400 stores in North America, including 200 in Canada

The coffee chain giant announced that it is closing hundreds of its stores in the US and Canada, including about 17% of its Canadian locations, due to the economic fallout of the COVID-19 pandemic.

How many people does each store employ? 20? I've read estimates of anywhere from 5-87 depending on size and location. So probably at least 1000 people have permanently lost their job and their health benefits.

Fenring

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: coronavirus
« Reply #1932 on: June 10, 2020, 03:24:52 PM »
Kasandra,

Gee, your own link suggests a difference in how common pre-symptomatic spread is from asymptomatic spread. But how could they know that if there's no way to know? MYSTERY

Your link asks "How can *I* tell" and of course the answer is you can't, which is the same thing I said; that is provided that "you" is a regular person. If "you" is a lab team then I'm sure there's a way to tell. But I guess it's more important to 'prove' I'm wrong since...wait, why is it important again? Oh yeah, cause I'm a right winger.

TheDrake

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: coronavirus
« Reply #1933 on: June 10, 2020, 03:41:24 PM »
Starbucks closed 150 stores in the US two years ago. In 2019, analysts warned stores were too close to each other.

Quote
BMO’s Andrew Strelzik warns investors on Starbucks’ saturation, now that each store has nearly four other locations within a one-mile radius. As a result of the increased density, the analyst downgraded SBUX to market perform from outperform,

Quote
Credit Suisse analyst Jason West said the brew of stepped-up competition combined with Starbucks’ recent opening of roughly 700 U.S. stores a year, weighs on its “ability to re-accelerate growth.”

So they rolled back about six month's worth of new starbucks? Signs would suggest that as one store in a one mile radius closes, there will be new positions at the remaining stores. Covid was either  a catalyst or an excuse for Starbucks to implement a long overdue correction.

Kasandra

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: coronavirus
« Reply #1934 on: June 10, 2020, 03:49:36 PM »
Kasandra,

Gee, your own link suggests a difference in how common pre-symptomatic spread is from asymptomatic spread. But how could they know that if there's no way to know? MYSTERY

Your link asks "How can *I* tell" and of course the answer is you can't, which is the same thing I said; that is provided that "you" is a regular person. If "you" is a lab team then I'm sure there's a way to tell. But I guess it's more important to 'prove' I'm wrong since...wait, why is it important again? Oh yeah, cause I'm a right winger.

I don't care what wing you fly on if your arguments make sense to me.  Too often yours don't to me and mine don't to you, alas.  The MYSTERY isn't a mystery, but a lack of investigative results at this early stage in the life and times of the coronavirus. But since we can't distinguish today we can't use our knowledge that an infected person could go either way to make plans.  Anyone you meet on the street could be uninfected, infected and asymptomatic, or infected and presymptomatic.  That's why I wear a mask, regardless of what the WHO says about it on any given day.

Kasandra

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: coronavirus
« Reply #1935 on: June 11, 2020, 06:51:27 AM »
Quote
On Monday, Dr. Ashish Jha, the director of Harvard's Global Health Institute, took issue with Van Kerkhove's anaylsis:

"Asymptomatic spread is the Achilles heel of this outbreak," Jha tweeted. "Both asymptomatic and pre-symptomatic spread huge problem for controlling disease because folks shedding virus while asymptomatic pre-symptomatic has one advantage: You can use contact tracing to find folks they infected. But that doesn't help prevent pre-symptomatic spread"

As the weather is warming up, the number of cases in the US is increasing rather than falling.  Dr. Jha is now predicting that the US death total will exceed 200,000 sometime in September.  Fauci is very optimistic about one or more vaccines being ready before spring next year, which probably will be after the peak of the winter infection season. 

Crunch

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: coronavirus
« Reply #1936 on: June 11, 2020, 08:04:10 AM »
Starbucks closed 150 stores in the US two years ago. In 2019, analysts warned stores were too close to each other.

Quote
BMO’s Andrew Strelzik warns investors on Starbucks’ saturation, now that each store has nearly four other locations within a one-mile radius. As a result of the increased density, the analyst downgraded SBUX to market perform from outperform,

Quote
Credit Suisse analyst Jason West said the brew of stepped-up competition combined with Starbucks’ recent opening of roughly 700 U.S. stores a year, weighs on its “ability to re-accelerate growth.”

So they rolled back about six month's worth of new starbucks? Signs would suggest that as one store in a one mile radius closes, there will be new positions at the remaining stores. Covid was either  a catalyst or an excuse for Starbucks to implement a long overdue correction.

“They needed to do it anyway“ is not going to help the newly unemployed pay their rent.

cherrypoptart

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: coronavirus
« Reply #1937 on: June 11, 2020, 10:01:01 AM »
As the weather warms up especially in much of the South people actually tend to spend even more times indoors especially during the heat of the day. That's the fly in the soup of the hope for the heat stopping the the virus, for instance in a place like Houston which boasts about being the air conditioning capital of the world. To the extant that people do spend more time outdoors the virus probably would decline in transmission but that's not always the case just because the weather warms especially when the heat and humidity get extreme which by all accounts makes it very difficult for the virus to survive on surfaces but unfortunately that's also right when people head inside for climate control.

yossarian22c

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: coronavirus
« Reply #1938 on: June 11, 2020, 11:12:20 AM »
Millions of people across the country have been standing shoulder to shoulder, loudly and repeatedly shouting. Some wore masks, some not.  We're told that mass crowds and shouting/singing is one of the most transmissible virus environments. This means that sometime in the next 10-ish days we should be seeing spikes of tens of thousands of new infections and corresponding deaths.

Does anyone disagree with this?

This is likely to cause a spike in cases. And I find it particularly concerning for several reasons.

1) Many states started seeing a rise in cases before any impact of the protests could be seen.

2) Likely due to more underlying health conditions the virus has been more serious in minority communities, which make up a majority of the protesters. Black lives matter. From a purely numbers standpoint the coronavirus is going to kill more black people than the police will in a decade or two. In fact I would wager more black people die from coronavirus traced to within two degrees of the protests than have died at the hands of police in the past 10 years. I understand the need for police reform and how brutal and despicable what happened to Floyd was but I fear what the protests combined with other loosening restrictions are going to do to public health and the economy as cases are likely to increase over the next two weeks.

3) These protests are coinciding with other opening up measures and could make it look like the phased reopening guidelines are less effective than they actually are leading to future further restrictions.

On the good news:
Almost all the protests were outdoors with limits super massive spreading. We wouldn't expect 1 person to infect 40-50+ people like was seen at some of the early indoor church events. Protesters in the densest crowds are likely to be younger and healthier leading to more mild cases of the virus but the danger is in them becoming spreaders and overwhelming test track and tracing paradigms.

We'll see what happens two weeks from now. I'll hope for the best, outdoors and young people but fear the worst as they get sick and infect others around them.

TheDeamon

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: coronavirus
« Reply #1939 on: June 11, 2020, 12:18:32 PM »
Almost all the protests were outdoors with limits super massive spreading. We wouldn't expect 1 person to infect 40-50+ people like was seen at some of the early indoor church events. Protesters in the densest crowds are likely to be younger and healthier leading to more mild cases of the virus but the danger is in them becoming spreaders and overwhelming test track and tracing paradigms.

We'll see what happens two weeks from now. I'll hope for the best, outdoors and young people but fear the worst as they get sick and infect others around them.

Well, the commonly understood time lags being what they are, the first people who became sick as a result of the protests should start to become known in the few days.

But while I too have doubts about 1 spreader being able to infect 40+ people on their own, I could still see them exceeding an R value of 6 or more.

Even worse, is that the protests have run for over 2 weeks, and can take as little as 5 days to go from initial infection to being contagious (but "pre-symptomatic"),  So 6 people on day 1 becomes 36 new cases on day 6, and 216 new cases on day 11, if you're in an area with 15 days worth of protests, you're looking at a potential of 1,296 new cases on that day. And because of the reopening, we can probably expect an R value of about 1.5 to 2 in the best case scenario from thereon. And trying to contact trace protestors is going to be all kinds of fun....

Which isn't to mention the matter of the numbers above assumes only 1 person with Covid19 showing up to protest in the first days of the protests.

ScottF

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: coronavirus
« Reply #1940 on: June 11, 2020, 12:51:24 PM »
... I fear what the protests combined with other loosening restrictions are going to do to public health and the economy as cases are likely to increase over the next two weeks.

We'll see what happens two weeks from now.

Two weeks from now? The first protests were May 26th, 16 days ago. Large protests happened two weeks ago. Why would we need to wait two more weeks out in order to see actual effects from two weeks ago?

rightleft22

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: coronavirus
« Reply #1941 on: June 11, 2020, 01:27:19 PM »
As the virus mutates we tend to assume that when it does it gets worse. I'm wondering it the current strain isn't as contagious.... for now

TheDeamon

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: coronavirus
« Reply #1942 on: June 11, 2020, 01:27:53 PM »
... I fear what the protests combined with other loosening restrictions are going to do to public health and the economy as cases are likely to increase over the next two weeks.

We'll see what happens two weeks from now.

Two weeks from now? The first protests were May 26th, 16 days ago. Large protests happened two weeks ago. Why would we need to wait two more weeks out in order to see actual effects from two weeks ago?

Because the cases from the early protests should start to become known about now. The exponential increase that potentially happened won't be noticed for another 2 weeks yet. But about a week from now, we'll likely have a pretty good idea of what is coming.

Kasandra

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: coronavirus
« Reply #1943 on: June 11, 2020, 02:08:08 PM »
It will be interesting if the open-state defenders blame the protesters for all of the increase.  It won't be easy, since we're already seeing significant increases in places that opened up over the past month that have nothing to do with the protests.  We'll see it anyway.

TheDrake

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: coronavirus
« Reply #1944 on: June 11, 2020, 02:16:57 PM »
It will be interesting if the open-state defenders blame the protesters for all of the increase.  It won't be easy, since we're already seeing significant increases in places that opened up over the past month that have nothing to do with the protests.  We'll see it anyway.

There is no question that it muddies the waters beyond being able to separate impacts. We don't have a control city that reopened and didn't have significant protesters. People talk about the "open air" but do we really think that those people weren't also spending time planning marches in close quarters, meeting up before and after events, thousands being put in jail holding areas together, out of towners in hotels and restaurants, journalists going over footage together, etc?

Only contact tracing could tell us that, but this will be impossible for the large crowds and everyone associated with them.

Crunch

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: coronavirus
« Reply #1945 on: June 11, 2020, 02:29:23 PM »
... I fear what the protests combined with other loosening restrictions are going to do to public health and the economy as cases are likely to increase over the next two weeks.

We'll see what happens two weeks from now.

Two weeks from now? The first protests were May 26th, 16 days ago. Large protests happened two weeks ago. Why would we need to wait two more weeks out in order to see actual effects from two weeks ago?

Because the cases from the early protests should start to become known about now. The exponential increase that potentially happened won't be noticed for another 2 weeks yet. But about a week from now, we'll likely have a pretty good idea of what is coming.

They should be getting well known actually:
Quote
The incubation period for COVID-19 is thought to extend to 14 days, with a median time of 4-5 days from exposure to symptoms onset.

At the 5 day mark, at least half the infections should have blown up with symptoms. The last half should be right behind it with the edge of the trailing infections already being known. In the week or so after, did we see a sudden, massive, jump?

Kasandra

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: coronavirus
« Reply #1946 on: June 11, 2020, 02:32:37 PM »
You mean asymptomatic people can transmit the virus?

ScottF

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: coronavirus
« Reply #1947 on: June 11, 2020, 05:19:33 PM »
You mean asymptomatic people can transmit the virus?

Irrelevant. Even though experts from the WHO and elsewhere seem to think that asymptomatic people typically have low viral loads and are lousy transmitters, they were wrong to suggest it publicly. Just wear your mask and forget about asking all these silly questions. We'll know a lot more in 2 weeks, you'll see.

Kasandra

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: coronavirus
« Reply #1948 on: June 11, 2020, 09:48:57 PM »
Believe who you want to believe....

Quote
White House health advisor Dr. Anthony Fauci said he has “no doubt” that Americans who aren’t wearing face masks, especially in large crowds, are increasing the risk of spreading the coronavirus.

“When you have crowds of people together and you have the lack of wearing a mask that increases the risk of there being transmissibility. I have no doubt about that,” he said during an interview Friday on CNBC’s “Halftime Report.” “When we see that not happening, there is a concern that that may actually propagate the further spread of infection.”

TheDeamon

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: coronavirus
« Reply #1949 on: June 11, 2020, 09:59:15 PM »
There is no question that it muddies the waters beyond being able to separate impacts. We don't have a control city that reopened and didn't have significant protesters. People talk about the "open air" but do we really think that those people weren't also spending time planning marches in close quarters, meeting up before and after events, thousands being put in jail holding areas together, out of towners in hotels and restaurants, journalists going over footage together, etc?

Actually, we kind of do in much of "fly over country" the protesting wasn't as significant, or persistent. We had some smaller protests here that were probably ongoing. But the largest was about 600 people and only lasted a few hours. Nothing like what went on in MSP, LA, Seattle, Portland, Washington, etc.

The "problem" is the more urbanized areas all had more significant protests going on, and for longer. They also have much more mass-transit in active use. So its going to be hard to filter for that. But the more rural areas may very well be able to carry on more or less business as usual so long as they don't have a lot of people traveling to/from those like hotspots with doing the 2 week self-quarantine thing.

Quote
Only contact tracing could tell us that, but this will be impossible for the large crowds and everyone associated with them.

Pretty sure that's a pretty standard thing they do for all confirmed Covid19 cases, at least so long as they don't have positive results coming back than they're able to process on that end. Unless there is some truly Asymptomatic spread going on, they'll be able to track it back to protests. Unless the protester decides to deny their activities.